Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

There are only two ways you can argue that animals' suffering and dying is bad. The first is a utility based argument, of which there are many that I have grouped here under one catagory. These include maintaining ecosystems, teaching children respect, and many many others. I have no problems with these arguments. However, I think a large amount of activities labled immoral or illegal do not fall under this catagory, but under the second.

The second argument is made solely on an ideological and religious basis. People think it is generally bad for anything to suffer, and bad for anything to die. But why? I feel that those of you who are not religious, and view the world objectively and with an open mind (as I strive to do) need to defend your postion on this if it is anything other than "It matters not at all, except by the effect it has." However, I stronly suspect that a large portion of agnostic and athieistic readers of this board maintain that it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why?

There are a few things that I need to note about this. I understand that I am tacitly questioning the basis of all morals. My answer to this ethical question is that of many evolutionary psychologists; morals exist, and in a larger sense all norms and values, becuase they help society in so many ways (we could spend a lot of time on this but I do not wish to). This is the view of morality that I have found the majority of smart non-religious people hold. You have to be very creative to support the normative value implied in this subject line through this view on moralty. I follow these moral guidlinese for pragmatic reasons, including personal ones (that they are ingrained into me). This is the same reason I would never torture a rabbit, or even kill one except under the most extreme cirumstances (it would cause me extreme emoitional discomfort). However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

I think there will be a few very similiar and common responses to this thread which need to be addressed hopefully before they happen.

The first is by people who do not understand what I am asking. Do not defend animal rights by stating another similiar moral. For example, do not tell me that animals shouldnt be torured because all life is sacred. I want to know why you think all life is sacred.

Another common response I anticpate is by moral relativists who do or dont know they fall into said catagory. DO NOT defend "animal rights" by saying that whatever is moral is what feels right to you, or that we each have our own morals and only we can say whats wrong or not. I understand you feel this, and thats fine, but your comments are worthless here. If you are a moral relativist, the thing of worth you can contribute is saying why you adopted said moral, and why this is reasonable and not based on feelings (I am not saying it is not reasonable for this to be based on feelings, just posting such is a waste of everyone's time).

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does it matter? If in death there is no memory, and in death there is no existance, therefore whether you once existed, or will exist is one and the same - moot.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does it matter? If in death there is no memory, and in death there is no existance, therefore whether you once existed, or will exist is one and the same - moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer to this one, but it seems like you want the other poster to answer so I'll wait for him. I think there's value in life too and am concerned that life could be it.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does it matter? If in death there is no memory, and in death there is no existance, therefore whether you once existed, or will exist is one and the same - moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an answer to this one, but it seems like you want the other poster to answer so I'll wait for him. I think there's value in life too and am concerned that life could be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to hear what you have to say.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

So why does it matter? If in death there is no memory, and in death there is no existance, therefore whether you once existed, or will exist is one and the same - moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was out all day - sorry I could not respond sooner. Not sure I understand your question. After death (mine) obviously nothing will matter. But while I am alive it all does. I don't understand how you can't see this. Are you trying to say since we all die and after death nothing matters so why does it matter now? The same reason atheists are more moral than theists. Precisely because there is no second chance - this is our only opportunity to make a difference. We screw up now and that's it. No coming back again and trying to do better. Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

This the same moral relitvists' arguement I had in my add on post. Your post can be boiled down to the last sentance "it matters to me." Good for you, but honestly, I dont care unless you provide a real reason. Why does it matter that a "life" is ending?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]


Was out all day - sorry I could not respond sooner. Not sure I understand your question. After death (mine) obviously nothing will matter. But while I am alive it all does. I don't understand how you can't see this. Are you trying to say since we all die and after death nothing matters so why does it matter now? The same reason atheists are more moral than theists. Precisely because there is no second chance - this is our only opportunity to make a difference. We screw up now and that's it. No coming back again and trying to do better. Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing animal and human life. Do you think there is no difference? What about a fish? A musquito? A virus? Or are you just making a confused argument?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Was out all day - sorry I could not respond sooner. Not sure I understand your question. After death (mine) obviously nothing will matter. But while I am alive it all does. I don't understand how you can't see this. Are you trying to say since we all die and after death nothing matters so why does it matter now? The same reason atheists are more moral than theists. Precisely because there is no second chance - this is our only opportunity to make a difference. We screw up now and that's it. No coming back again and trying to do better. Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing animal and human life. Do you think there is no difference? What about a fish? A musquito? A virus? Or are you just making a confused argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I value all life - humans ARE animals. I feel terrible just eating a steak (which I admit I do). Point is, since an animal is also only here this one time I fell great sorrow when one is killed. I wished I believed in re-incarnation or heaven for animals.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Death is the end of all things - there is nothing after that. There is no soul, no heaven no hell. This is true for all life. Knowing this is all you need to know in order to understand why an animal's death matters. It is the end of its existence for all time and that matters to me (most of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

This the same moral relitvists' arguement I had in my add on post. Your post can be boiled down to the last sentance "it matters to me." Good for you, but honestly, I dont care unless you provide a real reason. Why does it matter that a "life" is ending?

[/ QUOTE ]

When attempting to make moral decisions the first questino I ask myself is what do I value? What scenarios are preferable to me over other scenarios? The answer is simply that I value my own happiness and well beeing, I value good food, I like playing basketball and poker, I care deeply for family members, etc... I can then reseaonably assume that every other human beeing has certain preferences and values and care about things in a way that I do. Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives the most people the most happiness (basic utilitarianism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive expereiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife).

In making decisions about the validity of animal rights the important question for me is the level of cognition and abillity to perceive pain and pleasure in a way that is similarly meaningful to a human. Obviously I cannot generalize that my perceptions of pain and pleasure are felt in animals nearly as well as I can that they are felt in all humans. So for me the question is one of biology and a creature's rights are entitled to progressively more consideration as they are of higher intelligence.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

"Hey, if hooking up a baby chimpanzee to a car battery somehow helps create a longer lasting deodorant then I have only two things to say. Black is negative, red is positive. BZZZZZZZZZZZT!"

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"it matters to me." Good for you, but honestly, I dont care unless you provide a real reason. Why does it matter that a "life" is ending?

[/ QUOTE ]

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

We have empathy. Seeing an animal in pain makes us imagine our own suffering. It's distasteful.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]

We have empathy. Seeing an animal in pain makes us imagine our own suffering. It's distasteful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but just because something is distasteful or makes us uncomfortable does not make it wrong. I hate cleaning toilets. I also agree that most people think this is so wrong because hearing an animal suffer, especially if they express it in a humanlike way, reminds us of ourselves. I think a lot of people dont realize that this is the basis for their ethical standing on this subject.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives the most people the most happiness (basic utilitarianism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive expereiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife).

In making decisions about the validity of animal rights the important question for me is the level of cognition and abillity to perceive pain and pleasure in a way that is similarly meaningful to a human. Obviously I cannot generalize that my perceptions of pain and pleasure are felt in animals nearly as well as I can that they are felt in all humans. So for me the question is one of biology and a creature's rights are entitled to progressively more consideration as they are of higher intelligence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like this (honsestly), I dont think I've ever heard a utilitarian argument including animals and scaling on intellgience and/or awareness. I've heard them seperately but never combined.

The fact you wish to scale on intelligence is common and interesting. How do you feel about mentaly retarded humans? Or people in long term (and probably permanent) commas? How about children? I'm guessing you will say that it is actually scaled for species and not individual orginisms. What is the basis for this, if you choose to make this argument? If you do not, there are certain non-human primated who are more intelligent in most regards then severely handicapped humans. Would you advocate giving these primates more "human rights" then the handicapped?

There is also the issue of your assumtion that life is valuable, which you half-heartedly try to pass off as a provable point in the last 2 sentances of your first paragraph. I'm not gonna go in-depth here but I really would like you to reconsider your logic here and consider that this might actually be an assumption you are making. For starters, look at the jumps from yourself to humanity and all living things as a whole.

Edit: I come off a bit douchebaggish in this last paragraph, I dont claim to know much more then you about this, I just want you to explain yourself in more detail so I can understand how you are making these seeming leaps.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]

"Hey, if hooking up a baby chimpanzee to a car battery somehow helps create a longer lasting deodorant then I have only two things to say. Black is negative, red is positive. BZZZZZZZZZZZT!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you defend your stances at all? If not, I think you are much more immoral then me.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"Hey, if hooking up a baby chimpanzee to a car battery somehow helps create a longer lasting deodorant then I have only two things to say. Black is negative, red is positive. BZZZZZZZZZZZT!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

"You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning."

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you defend your stances at all? If not, I think you are much more immoral then me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The napalm quote is from a movie - I forget the name. Robert Duvall said it, didn't he?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

Apocalypse Now, why does it matter?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The fact you wish to scale on intelligence is common and interesting. How do you feel about mentaly retarded humans? Or people in long term (and probably permanent) commas? How about children? I'm guessing you will say that it is actually scaled for species and not individual orginisms. What is the basis for this, if you choose to make this argument? If you do not, there are certain non-human primated who are more intelligent in most regards then severely handicapped humans. Would you advocate giving these primates more "human rights" then the handicapped?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would not choose to make the argument whereby value is scaled for a species. Just like you I see no basis for such an argument. I assign value to individual creatures on the degree to which I can confidently say that those creatures experience pain and suffering in a meaningful way. This may well lead me to the conclusion that a particular ape is of more value than a particular mentally retarded or comatose person (although I do not know nearly enough physiology or neurology [nor prehpas does mankind] to make a reasonable guess). Finally, I would like to say that the value of life and that life's rights are entirely different questions. I think medical testing may be the best way to address this. There are very good public policy reasons not to strip anyone deemed mentally retarded of all their rights and preform medical tests on them. In addition to slippery slope arguments it is important to preserve the integrity of the psychiatric profession. However, medical testing on a more sentient ape could still be justified as the same public policy conerns don't apply and the utillity gained from the testing could easily outweigh the costs to the ape (not stating an opinion one way or another on this as I don't know enough about ape sentience/the importance of medical testing on apes).

[ QUOTE ]

There is also the issue of your assumtion that life is valuable, which you half-heartedly try to pass off as a provable point in the last 2 sentances of your first paragraph. I'm not gonna go in-depth here but I really would like you to reconsider your logic here and consider that this might actually be an assumption you are making. For starters, look at the jumps from yourself to humanity and all living things as a whole.


[/ QUOTE ]

To begin with I am assuming life is valuable. I do this because I know that my life is valuable and that I have a certain set of preferences that matter to me in a more real way than anything else ("I want therefore I matter"). Considering that all other human beeings seem very similar to me and continuously act as though they to have a set of preferences that is core to them, it is very parsiminous for me to assume that they are entities of equal value whose needs/wants also "matter". The extrapoloation to animals is indeed quite a bit shakier than that to humans (I am not a vegetarian but I could never eat dolphin/ape) but is unarguably valid to the extent that animals feel pain/pleasure in the same way (or prehaps a more profound one I don't understand) I do.

Finally I would like to make the clarification that my valuation of life is entirely different from a right to life. Just like a good utilitarian I will always sacrifice for the greater good. Rights are merely public policy tools to promote that good and as such are much less relevant to animals.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think from an evolutionary view that its the opposite, theres nothing wrong with torture/killing bunnies, but the behavior is wrong. In a communal/gregarious society that behavior would be selected against (who wants to live with someone callous/crazy enough to pointlessly torture an irrelevant living being? A lot of serial killers get their start doing this) and taboos and repulsion is manifested toward these actions.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get what right?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

This is a good post. I disagree with you on your assumptions and "leaps", but only slightly, and I certainly respect them.

Thank you for clarfying in such an articulate manner.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think from an evolutionary view that its the opposite, theres nothing wrong with torture/killing bunnies, but the behavior is wrong. In a communal/gregarious society that behavior would be selected against (who wants to live with someone callous/crazy enough to pointlessly torture an irrelevant living being? A lot of serial killers get their start doing this) and taboos and repulsion is manifested toward these actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definantly agree with this, and it is a good point. I alluded to it in my frist post. This explains things very nicely from a 3rd person view, but how do you feel on the subject?

The vast majority of social norms that have evolved specicically help a society when they are enforced. However, this does not have any negative impact except by appearence. In the case of slaughterhouses and animal testing, it actually has a very positive benifit when people deviate from the norm.

So again, I do not think that the quoted passage is a good reason to personally maintain this moral in certain situations.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

rofl

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

I hope I understand what your asking, but here goes:

We get one shot at life. Everything gets one shot at life. If there is something alive that is more destructive than beneficial, it's rational to kill it.

[ QUOTE ]
it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What need does torture satisfy? Certainly nothing beneficial. Torturing it for no reason other than that it's alive and you want to watch it suffer? Boys will be boys, I suppose. I have more trouble when adults do this.

Killing any non-rational animal is not immoral, but torturing them to death is wrong for two reasons; it doesn't satisfy the intent conveyed to the recipient for past crimes and it can do irreparable harm to the perpetrator. If a pit bull mauls a child, it won't find remorse by being skinned alive or drug behind a car. Killing it quickly is sufficient, as much for future danger as past crimes.

As far as cows go, they're bred and raised as food. If beef and poultry went off the market tomorrow, there would be a lot fewer cows and chickens. They only exist for their utility. So they are "paying" for their lives by being food later. Harvesting millions isn't the same as torturing one, but I don't agree with their treatment in many cases while they're alive, so I'm choosy about meat. But that's a personal choice.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think there is a big difference between feeling that killing bunnies with butterknives is wrong, as I strongly do, and thinking this behaviour is wrong, which I, frankly, don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

The next time you need a babysitter, hire the person who is willing to kill a bunny with a butterknife.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The next time you need a babysitter, hire the person who is willing to kill a bunny with a butterknife.


[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

You make many assumptions about justice and life which make it impossible for me to argue with you. Your points about torture have already been adressed. I'm not sure if you didnt read the thread or are going for a cheap laugh. You are taking a small part of the issue and blowing it up.

I feel like if I discuss parts of your post I will have to discuss the whole thing, which I do want to waste time doing. You have brought far to many beiliefs to this discussion; you need to discuss these beliefs not the effects they have on your moral relativism.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]

rofl

[/ QUOTE ]

I know why you think it matters. Your post is still completely worthless. Your assumtions that you are right before hand, demonstrated in your making fun of me from the side lines and complete unwillingness to discuss anything annoy me. I have encountered a lot of your religious types, who believe everything you are spoonfed.

You are now the first user here I have put on ignore.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

I agree with your post here and your follow-up post as well. I just don't understand why it needed to bring utilitarian ethics in to this argument. Additionally, once you do bring them into play, resolving your reasoned position of “my life is valuable to me”, with the altruistic ethic of utilitarian ethics “my life is valuable and subjugated to society”. Utilitarian ethics adds nothing to your argument and is the greatest logical jump in your post.

[ QUOTE ]
When attempting to make moral decisions the first questino I ask myself is what do I value? What scenarios are preferable to me over other scenarios? The answer is simply that I value my own happiness and well beeing, I value good food, I like playing basketball and poker, I care deeply for family members, etc... I can then reseaonably assume that every other human beeing has certain preferences and values and care about things in a way that I do. Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives the most people the most happiness (basic utilitarianism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive expereiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife).


[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore I consider the morally good option to be the one that gives me what I value, while not taking away what others reasonably are shown to value (basic individualism and objectivism, rejection of hedonism and altruism). Ending a life is thus bad in that it eliminated all future positive experiences a particular individual can have (which is especially worrisome if you don't buy into an afterlife).

Your follow up post was especially insightful in that it explains that ethics will only be as correct as our reason, and knowledge is correct. It is only when we say that mankind is not able to reason or understand does ethics live outside of mans domain.

I would say that it is also important to distinguish between values and desires. As to interchange the two will lead to incorrect ethics.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

I should mention that I haven't read any of the other replies in this thread, and I'm not sure if I'll bother to or not. This subject has been debated around here numerous times before.

[ QUOTE ]
People think it is generally bad for anything to suffer, and bad for anything to die. But why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should be clear about the obvious fact that suffering and dieing, and their counterparts, torturing and killing, are not exactly the same things.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that those of you who are not religious, and view the world objectively and with an open mind (as I strive to do) need to defend your postion on this if it is anything other than "It matters not at all, except by the effect it has."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if everyone would agree on what "not religious" means, but I think your suggestion is ridiculous in any case. I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally? If so, what exactly makes human suffering and death more important morally, than other animals.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I stronly suspect that a large portion of agnostic and athieistic readers of this board maintain that it is immoral to torture a rat, or an unwanted mut, or to mass slaughter cows. Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself. It's not exactly that simple - I also wouldn't want to be killed and eaten, but I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
morals exist, and in a larger sense all norms and values, becuase they help society in so many ways (we could spend a lot of time on this but I do not wish to). This is the view of morality that I have found the majority of smart non-religious people hold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea of why the concept of morality exists isn't the same thing as what morality actually is, or should be. (If morality exists as a concept to us because of the benefits it has brought to human society, it doesn't follow that what is moral is only what "benefits" human society.)

A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

Once I admit that in a general moral sense every humans welfare is as important as mine there is no alternative but to accept utilitarian ethic (I am further assuming that the respect for moral principles is not important outside of the promotion of human welfare). By this I mean that the world in which the most people have the most of what they value is automaticaly the better world.

I dont nessecaraily consider this to be the same idea as "the individual is subject to society". I would not nessecaraily have an objection to a state that infringed on its members rights for the greater good. But I beleive that in addition to being considered normatively good by many memeber of society, individual rights tend to be nessecary for the proper function of the rule of law and a market economy, things which in turn contribute tremendoulsy to the greataer good.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

It seems I am on a whole different paradigm than the rest of the board. I would appreciate it if you would read this to help me, not because I wish to be argumentative. In order for me to understand this disconnect between me and the rest of the world, I need to understand why you make the assumtions you make.

[ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as I thought most people understood it, animals cant have "wants" as we conventially understand them becasue they are not sentient. If animals werent sentient this logic wouldnt flow. But I, as well as most of the people here apperently, view animals as sentient. I understand the semantics involved in this word, but I dont want to spend much time on it.

Second, you again are making a huge jump from you to the rest of the world. This is a faith based belief. I have not done near enough research on this, and havent had any upper level philosophy or ehtics classes, and I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum by people much smarter then me.

That being said, you arent reasoning this out at all:

[ QUOTE ]

I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a good reason!! Unless you are a relativist, this does not make sense. What does your wants have to do with anything, especially general morality in the world? This seems to be the same general argument everyone is making.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

What justifications? To what higher power or ethic? You are again assuming, and I cant follow you here.

[ QUOTE ]

A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is absolutely ludicrous. Do you know what justify means? This is what this whole thread is about. You bringing a higher power into it suggests you are making assumptions which are not conducive to the type of discussion I want to have.

Regardless, I would respond by saying it has never been shown to me why this behaviour is inherently bad. I just know (if anyone out there stil cares about this and is even reading my posts) that people will say it has been shown to me and I have been blind to the logic. However, I maintain, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ME. People are making assumption which I dont agree with.

Which brings me to my last point.
[ QUOTE ]
I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont. I should have realized I needed to include this in my orginal topic. I did not want this thread to be me defnding my stance to everyone, but everyone defending their stance to me. I didnt realize everyone would use the assumption that human life is "valuable" on some kind of cosmic and supernatural level to say people are animals and hence there life is valuable too. This is not the logic I see in today's society; if this were the case either a) Murder would be against the law only as a social contract (like a peace treaty between all individuals). b) Murder would have a very simliar punishment as murder of more sentient animals, and there would be much more preservation and laws regarding the treatment and lives of animals. It is not plausible to me to support such a large disconnet, if scaling valuation is really what you belive. All values are relative, if humans are animals you cant say murder is always terrible, but murder of animals is sometimes ok especially if this is there purpose (how the f*ck can you divine their purpose, besides by arbitrarily assigning them this because you facilitated thier birth).

This kind of turned into a rant. Maybe I should have just focused on the last part. Irregardless, I regret starting this thread because its infuriating and depressing nature have caused it to become -ev. Ironicly I wish the thread dead just as it starts, because all of the above was just me clarifying what I was asking.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have empathy. Seeing an animal in pain makes us imagine our own suffering. It's distasteful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but just because something is distasteful or makes us uncomfortable does not make it wrong. I hate cleaning toilets. I also agree that most people think this is so wrong because hearing an animal suffer, especially if they express it in a humanlike way, reminds us of ourselves. I think a lot of people dont realize that this is the basis for their ethical standing on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I was only making an observation. I don't think a logical argument can be made for the existence of "right and wrong" (without resorting to the supernatural). We have need of some standards of behavior to make society function properly, but these are not absolute and can change according to our needs at the time. Anyway, since I don't believe in any absolute morality, I can't truthfully say "that's wrong".

I object to animal torture on a purely emotional basis.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems I am on a whole different paradigm than the rest of the board. I would appreciate it if you would read this to help me, not because I wish to be argumentative. In order for me to understand this disconnect between me and the rest of the world, I need to understand why you make the assumtions you make.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't wish to be argumentative either. I'm honestly not always that great at expressing what I'm thinking "verbally", but I will try to clarify where I'm coming from.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.



[/ QUOTE ] First, as I thought most people understood it, animals cant have "wants" as we conventially understand them becasue they are not sentient. If animals werent sentient this logic wouldnt flow. But I, as well as most of the people here apperently, view animals as sentient. I understand the semantics involved in this word, but I dont want to spend much time on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say sentient. I believe that animals experience pain. The Golden Rule applies (do unto other things the way you'd have done unto you). I don't need to know animals' "wants" for this.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, you again are making a huge jump from you to the rest of the world. This is a faith based belief. I have not done near enough research on this, and havent had any upper level philosophy or ehtics classes, and I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum by people much smarter then me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying exactly, and what it is that you say is a faith based belief. That animals are sentient? Again, you'd have to clarify what you mean by that. I apologize, but I still haven't read anything else in this thread (normally I would, but as I alluded to, I've already participated in discussing this issue before in numerous threads).

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, you arent reasoning this out at all: [ QUOTE ]
I consider it immoral to torture another animal for the same basic reason I consider it immoral to torture a human being: I wouldn't want to be tortured myself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a good reason!! Unless you are a relativist, this does not make sense. What does your wants have to do with anything, especially general morality in the world? This seems to be the same general argument everyone is making.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the Golden Rule is the only logical place to start when it comes to morality. And I think it makes perfect sense.

Technically, IMO, on a personal level, my "wants" don't have anything really to do with morality, in the sense that an individual can be screwed up and have a skewed sense of what ought to be (I apologize that I am probably not expressing myself very well here). Yes, I think that in a general sense, what is moral does have to do with what's best for "everybody".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the realities of our existence as we know it allow for a lot more justification on this than for torture, for obvious reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] What justifications? To what higher power or ethic? You are again assuming, and I cant follow you here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean justifications in terms of being objectively "right" (moral). Human beings eat meat. Maybe one day we won't any more, but we evolved killing and eating animals to survive, and we exist in a world of limited resources. Killing (as humanely as possible) and eating animals is on a completely different part of the moral spectrum than torturing animals.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A question for you: if you were ever "called on the carpet" by some sort of higher power, and asked to justify humans torturing animals, how would you defend it? What would you say that doesn't boil down to being on top of the food chain and might makes right?


[/ QUOTE ]This question is absolutely ludicrous. Do you know what justify means? This is what this whole thread is about. You bringing a higher power into it suggests you are making assumptions which are not conducive to the type of discussion I want to have.

Regardless, I would respond by saying it has never been shown to me why this behaviour is inherently bad. I just know (if anyone out there stil cares about this and is even reading my posts) that people will say it has been shown to me and I have been blind to the logic. However, I maintain, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO ME. People are making assumption which I dont agree with.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what type of discussion you want to have (similar to what I said above, your wants are technically immaterial AFAIAC, ha ha). You basically said in your initial post that you don't "think" that animal suffering is "wrong" or "bad". I'm attempting to tell you why I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume you do believe that human suffering and death does matter, morally?


[/ QUOTE ] I dont. I should have realized I needed to include this in my orginal topic. I did not want this thread to be me defnding my stance to everyone, but everyone defending their stance to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably wasn't the only one who thought this was arrogant on your part. If you essentially don't believe that, all things being equal, suffering is bad, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe if you go touch a hot stove or something it will help you see where I'm starting from when I consider morality.

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt realize everyone would use the assumption that human life is "valuable" on some kind of cosmic and supernatural level to say people are animals and hence there life is valuable too. This is not the logic I see in today's society; if this were the case either a) Murder would be against the law only as a social contract (like a peace treaty between all individuals). b) Murder would have a very simliar punishment as murder of more sentient animals, and there would be much more preservation and laws regarding the treatment and lives of animals. It is not plausible to me to support such a large disconnet, if scaling valuation is really what you belive. All values are relative, if humans are animals you cant say murder is always terrible, but murder of animals is sometimes ok especially if this is there purpose (how the f*ck can you divine their purpose, besides by arbitrarily assigning them this because you facilitated thier birth).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that what the law allows, nor what we as human beings do in practice necessarily matches up to what is "moral" (does anyone?) I don't think it's a revelation to say that human society has room for moral improvement. And again, with regards to animals, I'm primarily picking on the the suffering/torture aspect of your question, rather than simple death.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get what right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have to get it right the first and only time here(at least that is how I feel).

[/ QUOTE ]

Get what right?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, that is a common expression. What I mean is that you must make the most of your life while you have a chance. You have to make a difference. I do NOT live my life and make decisions, as others have said here, based on what gives me the most happiness. I consider what is best for society and others (including animals) more so than myself. I do things that make me happy but that is not paramount in my life. I do for others and I don't need a god reference as a moral compass to do that. I know this is off base of the original post but you asked.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

What I mean is that you must make the most of your life while you have a chance. You have to make a difference. I do NOT live my life and make decisions, as others have said here, based on what gives me the most happiness. I consider what is best for society and others (including animals) more so than myself. I do things that make me happy but that is not paramount in my life. I do for others and I don't need a god reference as a moral compass to do that. I know this is off base of the original post but you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you sacrifice your own happiness first and foremost for that of the state?

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What I mean is that you must make the most of your life while you have a chance. You have to make a difference. I do NOT live my life and make decisions, as others have said here, based on what gives me the most happiness. I consider what is best for society and others (including animals) more so than myself. I do things that make me happy but that is not paramount in my life. I do for others and I don't need a god reference as a moral compass to do that. I know this is off base of the original post but you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you sacrifice your own happiness first and foremost for that of the state?

[/ QUOTE ]

For others. Does that mean the 'state' as you probably define it - NO. My own happiness is not the only thing that matters to me. I care about others and that includes animals (suffering, etc). Sorry you don't understand.

Re: Animal pain, suffering, and death: why does it matter?
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

What I mean is that you must make the most of your life while you have a chance. You have to make a difference. I do NOT live my life and make decisions, as others have said here, based on what gives me the most happiness. I consider what is best for society and others (including animals) more so than myself. I do things that make me happy but that is not paramount in my life. I do for others and I don't need a god reference as a moral compass to do that. I know this is off base of the original post but you asked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you sacrifice your own happiness first and foremost for that of the state?

[/ QUOTE ]

For others. Does that mean the 'state' as you probably define it - NO. My own happiness is not the only thing that matters to me. I care about others and that includes animals (suffering, etc). Sorry you don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to understand.

Do you believe Life is finite consciousness, and death is infinite unconsciousness?